ORDER

Alka Sarin, J. - Heard through video conferencing.

2. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.12.2020 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Trial Court and order dated 10.03.2021 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Appellate Court dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction.

3. The facts relevant to the present Us are that in September 2020 the plaintiff-petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration to the effect that she is owner of 1/2 share in House No.45 bearing Property ID No.300C47082 measuring 200 sq. yards situated in Mauza Chandpur named Jaswant Nagar, Yamunanagar and for cancellation of Transfer Deed No.5735 dated 22.09.2017 executed by defendant-respondent No.1 in favour of her deceased daughter Kanta Devi and consequently for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent No.2 from transferring/selling the property in dispute to any person by way of auction or any other manner. As per the averments in the plaint (Annexure P-l), the plaintiff-petitioner and the defendant-respondent No.1 are sisters and vide sale deed dated 20.02.1969 their father, Tirath Ram, had purchased the plot in dispute from one Jaswant Singh. Tirath Ram died on 13.05.1983 and the mother has also expired leaving the plaintiff-petitioner and the defendant-respondent No.l as their legal heirs. It is further alleged that the plaintiff-petitioner had lately learnt that the defendant-respondent No.1 had executed the Transfer Deed in favour of her daughter, Kanta Devi, who was unmarried and had died. Kanta Devi had mortgaged the property in dispute with the defendant-respondent No.2 and availed CC limit and that the defendant-respondent No.2 was going to auction the property in dispute. Along with the plaint, an application (Annexure P-2) was filed for grant of ad-interim injunction for restraining the defendant-respondents from alienating, transferring the property in dispute till final decision of the civil suit.

4. The defendant-respondent No.1 filed a written statement (Annexure P-3) as also a reply (Annexure P-4) to the application for grant of ad-interim injunction. The defence put up by the defendant-respondent No.1 is that she is an illiterate lady and her son Dharam Veer had gone with his sister Kanta to get executed a transfer deed of some other property in Jaswant Nagar transferred in favour of Kanta Rani from the defendant-respondent No.1. But Kanta Rani in collusion with her brother had played a fraud with defendant-respondent No.1 and had instead got the property in dispute transferred in her favour and that this fact had come to the knowledge of defendant-respondent No.1 after the plaintiff-petitioner filed the present civil suit.

5. The defendant-respondent No.2 also filed a written statement (Annexure P-5) raising preliminary objections about jurisdiction and maintainability of the civil suit in view of the bar in Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. It was averred that the property in dispute had been mortgaged by Kanta d/o Satpal for a CC limit of rupees forty lakhs granted to M/s Mahaluxmi Enterprises through it's proprietor, Kanta, by way of equitable mortgage by way of deposit of original Transfer Deed No.5735 dated 22.09.2017 and original Sale Deed No.3895 dated 20.02.1969 along with other documents. According to the defendant-respondent No.2 there had been default in payment of the loan amount and the account had been declared as NPA and proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 had been initiated to recover the outstanding loan amount. According to the defendant-respondent No.2, notice under Section 13(2) of the said Act had been issued to the borrower M/s Mahaluxmi Enterprises and publication to that effect had also been made in the newspaper on 18